REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

PEOPLE OFPHILIPPINES,

CRIM CASE NO. SB-17-CRM-0250

For: Violation of Section 3(e)of R.A.No. 3019

EDGARDO A. TALLADO,ET AL.,

Present:CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, SJ., J. andFERNANDEZ,B.J.

~1'lM~'"K J ~'1:1[------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1[

For resolution is accused Edgardo A. Tallado, Sim o. Mataand Mario dela Cruz's "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (OFRESOLUTION DATED 06 JULY 2017)" received by the Court throughregistered mail on July 28, 2017.1

In the said motion, the accused pray that this Courtreconsider its Resolution dated July 6, 2017, denying theirOmnibus Motion2 which sought the alternative remedies ofdismissal of the case for lack of probable cause; quashal of theinformation; and the conduct of a new preliminary inVeStiga~

pp. 52-74, Vol. III, Record2 pp. 4 - 725, Vol. II, Record

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Tallado, et. al.,SB-17 -CRM-0250

In support of their motion, the accused argue that the Court'sfinding of probable cause in its Order dated February 2017,appears to be the warrant of arrest itself and needs someexposition of details to justify the Court's conclusion.3 The accusedclaim that it would "be far more in consonance with due process oflaw... if the Honorable Court undertakes a new judicialdetermination of probable cause In which both partiesparticipate."4

The accused further claim that "matters or issues already inthe records of the preliminary investigation of the case conducted bythe prosecution agencies of government which (records) aresubmitted to the Court were not so clear and were not noticed bythe Honorable Court when it issued motu proprio its order findingprobable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest".5 In thepresent case, the accused assert that there are such issues andcircumstances that justify the exercise of discretion by this Courtto re-examine its finding of probable cause.6

Anent their prayer for the quashal of the Information, theaccused argue that the Court may take cognizance of those factsbeyond the allegations of the Information which are admitted bythe prosecution.7 In support of their contention, the accused citethe cases of People v. Dela Rosa8 as quoted in Garcia v. Court ofAppeals9, and People v. Albano.lO

From the above-cited doctrine, the accused argue that on thebasis of the records of the preliminary investigation, the Court maymake a determination of the legality of private complainantEdgardo S. Gonzales' transfer by determining whether the latter isa medical worker and entitled to the protection of R.A. No. 7305,otherwise known as "The Magna Carta of Public Health Workers" .11

Accordingto the accused, such transfer allegedlyformsthe fac/7

3 p. 55, id4 id5 p. 55, id6 Id7 p. 56, id8 98 SCRA 190 (1980)9 266 SCRA 678 (1997)10 163 SCRA 511 (1988)11 pp. 56- 58, Vol. III, Record

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. TaIlado, et. aI.,SB-17-CRM-0250x----------------------------------------------------x

basis for the criminal charge against them.12 The accused furtherassert that the determination of private complainant's coverageunder R.A. No. 7305 is a legal issue and does not involve anyfactual issues that would necessitate trial.13 The accused thusreiterate their arguments in their Omnibus Motion that: accusedTallado has the power to re-assign the private complainant; 14private complainant was not a public health officer;ls the CivilService Commission's (CSC's) conclusion that a provincialveterinarian is a medical officer does not bind theSandiganbayan;16 and, that private complainant was notgeographically re-assigned.17

Lastly, the accused reiterate their claim that they were denieddue process by not being furnished a copy of the Joint Motion forReconsideration of the complainant and the simplistic denial oftheir motion for reconsideration by the Ombudsman.18

The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration for lack ofmerit.

First. In its Order dated February 20, 2017, the Courtexplicitly stated its basis in finding probable cause and thedocuments it examined in reaching the same, contrary to theaccused's argument that the "Order dated February 20, 2017appears to be the Warrant of Arrest itself'. 19The said Order reads:

In its Order dated March 23, 2015, the Office of theOmbudsman, among others, indicted accused Edgardo A.Tallado, Sim O. Mata, Jr. and Mario T. Dela Cruz, forviolation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, /7

12 p. 58, id.13 P. 58, id.14 P. 59, id15 P. 60, id16 P. 65, id17 P. 66, id18 P. 67-70, id19 P. 55, id

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Tallado, et. al.,SB-17-CRM-0250x----------------------------------------------------x

amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act.

In its Order dated October 8, 2015, the Office of theOmbudsman denied the motion for reconsideration filed byaccused Tallado, Mata, Jr. and Dela Cruz.

After a careful review of the records, the Court findsthat probable cause exists in this case. Accordingly, let awarrant of arrest be issued against accused Edgardo A.Tallado, Sim O. Mata, Jr. and Mario T. Dela Cruz.

Further, let a Hold Departure Order be issued in thiscase against the said accused.

Thus, it was after a careful review of the aforementioneddocuments and their attachments that the Court made itsdetermination of the existence of probable cause and itsconsequent issuance of the warrants of arrest. The accused'sentreaty to an exposition of details to justify the Court's finding ofprobable cause deserves scant consideration. To be sure, it is notfor the accused to determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustivethe judge's examination of the records should be since the extent ofthe judge's examination depends on the exercise of his sounddiscretion as the circumstances of the case require.21

To put the matter to rest, however, the Court will indulge theaccused and lay down its basis for its prior finding of probablecause.

That on 19 November 2012, or sometime prior orsubsequent thereto, in Daet, Camarines Norte Province,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this HonorableCourt, accused public officers, EDGARDOA. TALLADO,beingthe Governor of Camarines Norte Province, SIMO. MATA,JR.,Provincial Legal Officer and MARIOT. DELA eRn

" p. 304, Vol. I, Record ~~21 Leviste v. Alameda 626 SCRA 575,610 (2010), citing Ab~Q v.· uian 326SCRA 1, 17 (2000)

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Tallado, et. al.,SB-1 7-CRM -0250x----------------------------------------------------x

Supervising Administrative Officer of said prOVInce,committing the offense in relation to their office and takingadvantage of their respective official positions, conspiring withone another did then and there willfully, unlawfully, andcriminally cause undue injury and prejudice to ProvincialVeterinarian Edgardo S. Gonzales, in the discharge of theirofficial and/or administrative functions through evident badfaith, by adamantly ignoring the orders of the Civil ServiceCommission (CSC) directing TALLADOto reinstate Gonzalesas Provincial Veterinarian from the Provincial InformationOffice back to the Provincial Veterinary Office (PVO)and withthe cooperation of MATAand DELA CRUZ, TALLADOdroppedGonzales from the rolls and obstinately refused to effectuateCSC Decision No. 13-0841 dated 12 August 2013 directinghim to restore Gonzales to his position as ProvincialVeterinarian at the PVO, to the damage and prejudice ofGonzales in the amount representing his compensation,salary and allowance from the time he was removed from hisstation-specific position.22

It is settled that the existence of probable cause or the lackthereof should be assessed based on the likely presence of theelements of the crime charged as may be established by the extantrecords. The elements of the crime of violation of Section 3 (e) ofR.A.No. 3019 are as follows:

1. the offender must be a public officer dischargingadministrative, judicial, or officialfunctions;

2. he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident badfaith or gross inexcusable negligence; and

3. his action caused any undue injury to any party,including the government, or gave any private partyunwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in thedischarge of his functions.23

In this case, the Information alleges that the accusedcommitted the second and third elements of the crime byadamantly ignoring the orders of the CSC to reinstate Gonzales,dropping Gonzales from the rolls, and refusing to effectuate C//

22 pp. 1-2, Vol. I, Record23 Garcia v. Ombudsman, 741 SCRA 184-185 (2014), citing:8702 SCRA 755, 762 (2013)

ay v.peOPle)D

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Tallado, et. al.,SB-17-CRM-0250x----------------------------------------------------x

Decision No. 13-0841 dated August 12, 2013, directing them torestore Gonzales to his former position.

Among the documents attached to the Information are thefollowing:

1. Order dated March 23, 2015, issued by the Office ofthe Ombudsman which found probable cause toindict herein accused with the crime of violation ofSection 3(e) of R.A.No. 3019;24

2. Order dated October 8, 2015, issued by the Office ofthe Ombudsman which denied the Motions forReconsideration of herein accused;25

3. ese Decision No. 130841 promulgated on August 12,2013, which set aside Memorandum No. 121119-02dated November 19, 2012, issued by accused Talladoordering Gonzales's dropping from the rolls. The esedirected accused Tallado to immediately effectuate therestoration of Gonzales to his position as ProvincialVeterinarian at the Provincial Veterinary Office withpayment of back salaries and other benefits;26

4. ese Decision No. 131074 promulgated on November5, 2013, which found accused Tallado guilty ofindirect contempt for his unjust refusal toimplement/ comply with the ese's directive inDecision No. 12-0494 holding Gonzales' reassignmentas invalid and directing Tallado to cause the return ofGonzales to his position as provincial veterinarian atthe Provincial Veterinary Office;27

5. ese Resolution No. 1302540 promulgated onNovember 18, 2013, which denied accused Tallado'smotion for reconsideration of ese Decision No. 13-0841 dated August 12, 2013 ;28, /7

pp. 14-25, Vol. I, Recordpp.27-29, idpp. 31- 35, idpp. 36-42. idpp. 43-45, id

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Tallado, et. al.,SB-17-CRM-0250x----------------------------------------------------x

6. Criminal and Administrative Complaint of Edgardo S.Gonzales, DVM, together with its Annexes "A" to "U",29which was received by the Office of the Ombudsmanon January 28, 2013. This became the basis of theinstitution of the criminal action against hereinaccused;

7. Counter-Affidavit of accused Edgardo A. Tallado,together with its Annexes "A" to "I",30 which wasreceived by the Office of the Ombudsman on June 20,2013;

8. Counter-Affidavit of accused Sim o. Mata, Jr. togetherits Annexes "A" to "J",31 which was received by theOffice of the Ombudsman on June 20,2013; and

9. Counter-Affidavit of accused Mario T. Dela Cruz,together with its Annexes "A" and "B",32 which wasreceived by the Office of the Ombudsman on June 20,2013.

A review of the above-enumerated documents shows that theaccused are probably guilty of the charge as there is a markedpattern of non-compliance with the CSC's duly-promulgateddecisions and orders, thus causing probable undue injury toprivate complainant Gonzales. Notably, the accused do not denytheir non-compliance with the CSC's directives. As found by theOmbudsman in its Order dated March 23,2015:

Moreover, Tallado does not deny the claim thatGonzales was not reinstated to his position as ProvincialVeterinarian, despite the CSC rulings. Together with Mata, hejustified that Gonzales' refusal to abide with his reassignmentorder and to report at the Public Information Office,constrained them to issue Memorandum No. 121119-02,droppingGonzalesfromthe roll/!

4ftpp. 46-176, idpp.177 -236, idpp.237-292PP293-302

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Tallado, et. al.,SB-17-CRM-0250x----------------------------------------------------x

The categorical rulings of the CSC and the finding ofIndirect Contempt against respondent Tallado indicate hisdisrespect to legal authority (the CSC in this case). As aresult, Gonzales was prejudiced by depriving him of his rightto his station specific position, amounting to constructivedismissal.33

Second. Anent their prayer for the quashal of theInformation, the accused are correct that pursuant tojurisprudence, additional facts and matters beyond the allegationsin the Information may be considered by the Court in resolving amotion to quash. In Antone v. Berenilla,34 the Supreme Courtenumerated some of these exceptions, to wit: those admissionsmade by the prosecution;35 when the Rules so permit, such asupon the grounds of extinction of criminal liability and doublejeopardy;36 and when facts have been established by evidencepresented by both parties which destroyed the prima facie truth ofthe allegations in the Information during the hearing on a motionto quash based on the ground that the facts charged do notconstitute an offense.37

These "additional facts," however, must still tend to establishthe existence of a valid ground for a motion to quash. In theaccused's cited case of Garcia v. Court of Appeals, the SupremeCourt affirmed the lower court and Court of Appeals' cognizance ofthe prior testimony of the private complainant in quashing theinformation primarily because the said testimony established thefact that the crime of bigamy had prescribed. If such facts fail toestablish a valid ground to quash, the general rule still remainsthat matters ofdefense cannot be raised in a motion to quash.38

In the present case, the accused would have this Court takecognizance of their principal argument that private complainantGonzales does not fall within the ambit of R.A. No. 7305. Accordingto the accused, such a finding is determinative of the legality ofGonzales' transfer or reassignment which, in turn, negates thefactual basis of the present criminal charg/733 pp. 17-18, Vol. I, Record. -fJv/ ~34 637SCRA615, 628 (2010) -(j' \l;) \)

35 Id, citing People v. Navarro, 75 Phil. 516, 518-519 [1945]36 Id, citing Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 678,691 (1997)37 Id, citing People v. De1a Rosa, 98 SCRA 190 (1980)38 People v. Odtuhan, 701 SCRA 506,514 (2013)

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. TaIlado, et. aI.,SB-17-CRM-0250}C----------------------------------------------------}C

The Court disagrees.

Assuming arguendo the validity of the accused's argument,the same does not fall under any of the recognized grounds toquash the Information, least of which is that the facts charged donot constitute an offense. While the present indictment may haveits factual roots in the private complainant's re-assignment, theimputation of criminal liability to the accused, as clearly set forthin the Information, is predicated on their repeated non-compliancewith the duly promulgated directives of the CSC.

Third. As to the accused's reiteration of their argument thatthey were deprived of due process, the prosecution correctly pointsout39 that the same is a mere rehash of the pertinent portion of theaccused's Omnibus Motion. This argument was squarely passedupon by the Court in its Resolution promulgated on July 6, 2017,to wit:

The accused were not denied due process that wouldwarrant a reinvestigation they pray for. As basis for areinvestigation, the accused harp on the privatecomplainant's failure to furnish them a copy of his motion forreconsideration that led to the Ombudsman's Order findingprobable cause for the present indictment.

Undoubtedly, the accused were entitled to be furnisheda copy of the motion for reconsideration filed by the privatecomplainant consistent with the principles of due process andfair play. However, this failure does not automaticallyconstitute a deprivation of due process to warrant areinvestigation. This is true when, as is the case, the accusedwere still afforded an opportunity to be heard specificallythrough the filingof their motion for reconsideration.

Artillero v. Casimiro, which was reiterated in Shu v.Dee, teaches:

The essence of due process is simply anopportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits isnot the absence of previous notice but the

______ a_b_s_o_lu_t_e_a_bsencethereaf and lack af appartu/7

~ apposWon d"ed 1"Y 31,2017, pp. 75-76, Vol."', Reconl 4A

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Tallado, et. al.,SB-17 -CRM -0250

to be heard. We have said that where a party hasbeen given a chance to be heard with respect tothe latter's motion for reconsideration there issufficient compliance with the requirements of dueprocess.

In the present case, the accused were afforded the fullopportunity to controvert the allegations of the privatecomplainant and the Ombudsman's findings in its orderfinding probable cause, when they were given the opportunityto file a motion for reconsideration.

At any rate, courts are called upon to exercise greatrestraint in granting any reinvestigation with the consequentdelay involved, since the weighing and evaluation of suchevidence in defense of the accused against the State'sevidence is best left to its judgment and its verdict ratherthan to that of the prosecution. To ferret out the truth, trial isto be preferred to a reinvestigation. In this case, theprosecution and the Court itself had already determined theexistence of probable cause. Thus, trial must proceed.40

WHEREFORE, accused Edgardo A. Ta1lado, Sim O. Mata andMario dela Cruz's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (OFRESOLUTION DATED 06 JULY 2017), is DENIED for lack of merit.

,- /PARO M. JE-

Presiding JusticeChairperson

ITO R. FERNANDssociate Justice